Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
I'm sure we can all come down on the side of Paul and George as to the complexities and inaccuracies of digital modeling. I'm sure it sucks. But the next logical step is not that all work done in the box sucks, too. I find use for them much in the same way as George does with the Amp Farm. It's not quite the same, but many times I can make it work to a point where few people would care about or notice the difference.

I find that I like the plugins that do something new, rather than emulate something in the hardware world. The Oxford EQ falls into that category. If you're going to mix in the box, you have to analyze the tools in terms of what you could do with them, rather than which have a one to one match with something in the real world.

In other words, plugins probably ARE crap, but I have no other choice to use them, and sometimes I'm quite happy with the sound I get from them.

As far as emulations sounding the same as the originals, forget it. I've used the real thing and it's not the same. But you might be able to do something useful or even artistic with them just the same, and that may be all that really matters.

Steve

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
Paul, thanks. I dunno, seems to me that someday they will get a computer to model the real deal, just not yet. I mean they try to model the world's climate and various economies of the world, and if I'm not mistaken the algo in Autotune came from a geophysist who normally did oil exploration with FFT and so on. So you never know where the tech may be developed and then someone comes along and adapts it to another use.

Hench,

No mealy-mouthed, lawyer-like "weasel words" from you, aay? Gotta tell, PH pizza sucks too. I like to find a good NY place, or my fav, a Chicago place. The real deal. \:\)

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 649
K
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
K
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny B:
Paul, thanks. I dunno, seems to me that someday they will get a computer to model the real deal, just not yet.
That's like the Turing test for psychiatry, isn't it? I mean the guy on the other side isn't really a person, but a program that asks the same questions and gives the same responses. I didn't agree with Turing in that regard years ago, and I don't really agree that *predictable* results are the point as far as the LA2A goes. As I said earlier, its unpredictable personality was/is part of its charm (as well as part of its madness).


KK Proffitt
Chief Audio Engineer, JamSync, Nashville
JamSync
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny B:
Gotta tell, PH pizza sucks too. I like to find a good NY place, or my fav, a Chicago place. The real deal. \:\)
That's my point. No matter how bad PH pizza is. is still better than pre-frozen crap at the local store. The real thing is ALWAYS better.


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
KK, you have a CS degree, suppose you try and explain the different ways to "try" to model something complex like an analogue device. But please keep it to the KISS level, I'm not too bright. \:\)

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 649
K
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
K
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny B:
KK, you have a CS degree, suppose you try and explain the different ways to "try" to model something complex like an analogue device. But please keep it to the KISS level, I'm not too bright. \:\)
Sorry, but I'll happily defer to George and Paul .


KK Proffitt
Chief Audio Engineer, JamSync, Nashville
JamSync
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
Good move! \:\)

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Read this on SOS from Hugh Robjohns. Though I dislike Pod's, and love tube amps and high quality gear, I am keeping an open mind, (though not convinced, yet)

Convolutional processing has been around in an academic form for a long time, but it was the rapid advances in DSP technology about five years ago that enabled the first practical products using this technology to reach the pro-audio market. I'm thinking here of devices like Sony's DRE S777 and Yamaha's SREV1 both sampling reverb units and the mighty Sintefex FX8000 'Replicator' and its siblings, the FX2000 equaliser and CX2000 compressor. All of these products employ very sophisticated digital signal processing to 'convolve' the input audio signal with a 'sample' derived from some desired process. If you're not familiar with the principles of DSP convolution, it's worth checking out the Sony preview and Sintefex review, which contain a lot of background material (see SOS June 1999 and September 2002 respectively, or see http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun99/articles/sonydres.htm and http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep02/articles/sintefex2000.asp).

In essence, the characteristics of an audio signal processor (or indeed an acoustic environment, in the case of the convolutional reverb units) are captured by measuring their unique impulse response. An impulse a click to you and me theoretically contains all signal frequencies at the same time, and if an impulse is fed into an audio signal processor, the output signal will be a modified impulse. The impulse level may change, there may be 'echoes' or phase-shifts, and the impulse may be stretched in time. The nature of these variations is unique to each process and so defines every aspect of the signal processing in a precise way it is the sonic equivalent of a fingerprint.


The Liquid Channel's stylish chrome rack ears.
Since a single digital sample is very similar in its form to a single impulse, this convolution technique is well suited to digital signal processing. In essence, all that is required is that each digital sample input to the convolutional processor has to be modified to replicate the same impulse pattern obtained from the test described above, which means that a single input sample may have to generate a vast train of output samples of different levels all of which have to be added to the train of samples generated by the preceding and following samples. Consequently, convolution is an extremely DSP-hungry technology, requiring a huge amount of high-resolution digital signal processing. The Sintefex FX8000, for example, employs 44 SHARC DSP chips.

However, provided this is all done with sufficient precision, when the new input signal is convolved with the impulse response of the required audio process, the resulting output will provide a perfect replica of the required sound, just as if the input signal had been processed through the original device. This approach enables a degree of fidelity and accuracy that can not be achieved in any other way, which is why the technique is becoming so popular. It also explains why those companies who make use of these techniques tend to speak of digital 'replication' rather than 'modelling'. The latter uses conventional digital signal processing to provide a sound similar to the intended original unit by 'modelling' its characteristics. 'Replication', on the other hand, uses the more sophisticated convolutional signal processing to provide a precise and totally accurate recreation of the intended unit's characteristics.

More Than Convolution
A convolutional processor requires a huge amount of data to define the characteristics of the product it is intended to replicate. If you consider an EQ, different impulse responses have to be taken for every possible variation of control setting every frequency value, every gain increment, and every Q value. Devices with non-linear characteristics those with transformers, valves, or level-dependent distortion effects, for example also have to be analysed at a variety of different input signal levels to produce an accurate replication.
A compressor is even more of a challenge to analyse, because of the dynamic nature of the device its performance changes intentionally with both input signal level and the signal envelope. So, in addition to taking impulse responses for every possible control parameter setting, each one has to be repeated for a wide range of input levels, and the dynamic response has to be analysed too.
However, complex though all this is, the problem actually gets a lot harder when trying to replicate a mic preamp. Not only are there all the sonic characteristics associated with the circuit topology, active devices, input transformers and so on to analyse, measure and replicate, but there is also the interaction between the microphone's output circuitry and the preamp's input impedance and circuit design. This interaction affects the sonic characteristics of a preamp in a significant way, as anyone who has played with a switchable-impedance preamp can attest, and varies with different microphones because of their own impedance characteristics. So, the only way to accurately replicate a particular preamp is to match its input impedance characteristics exactly the precise resistance, capacitance and inductance as well as the electronic or transformer-coupled input topology, and all the other characteristics associated with its amplification circuitry. Naturally, this adds another suite of analytical tests when collecting data on a preamp for replication.
The solution Focusrite have developed mimics the actual input-impedance characteristics of each replicated preamp directly at the analogue input of the Liquid Channel. Using an incredibly elaborate arrangement of extremely high-quality signal relays, various inductors, capacitors, resistors and a special transformer can be switched into the input circuitry. This is what led to the idea of a 'liquid' channel the fluid way in which the input stage can be altered. Using this unique technology, the microphone will 'see' the precise input impedance of the genuine preamp, and thus the tonality created by the input stage's loading of the microphone will be replicated accurately as well.
One problem encountered when trying to replicate vintage equipment is that no two units sound the same. These inherent variances are caused by the ageing of components, or where components have been substituted by others of slightly different characteristics (eg. different valves). Such variances generally result in a different level of harmonic distortion, and so Focusrite have incorporated a facility for the user to dial in a controlled amount of second-harmonic distortion to control the perceived 'warmth' of the replication.

Beauty Is In The Detail

In theory, there is no limit to the kinds of signal processing that can be replicated using convolution as the heart of the processing although the legal aspects of this kind of technique are yet to be formally addressed. The existing convolutional reverb units demonstrate the startling accuracy that can be achieved in replicating the acoustic signatures of real environments, and the Sintefex products have provided stunningly accurate and very cost-effective replicas of a wide variety of classic EQs and compressors.

However, the one other item of revered studio outboard that frequently carries the 'classic' title is the mic preamp. Whether modern or vintage, valve or solid-state, electronically or transformer balanced, different mic preamps sound very different, and engineers and producers often go to extraordinary lengths to find the best-sounding preamp for each project.

So, wouldn't it be nice if the convolution technique could be applied to replicating the best classic mic preamps? Well, that is exactly what Focusrite have done with their new 'Liquid Channel', which was officially launched at the AES Convention in New York in October, and mentioned in last month's SOS News pages. The production units should be in the shops by the New Year, but shortly before the AES launch, I was given a privileged preview of a production prototype, and the opportunity to learn more about this revolutionary product directly from the designers.

The Liquid Look
The Liquid Channel's front-panel styling is pleasing to the eyes, with its attractive rotary encoders and subtly illuminated buttons.
The preamp section starts with a vertical bar-graph meter showing input levels over a 20dB range, with a separate Clip LED. A button cycles the input selection between analogue mic or line level and the digital input, while a fourth LED illuminates when the selected preamp replication is using the input transformer.
A rotary encoder determines the input gain, with a ring of LEDs to show the current setting. The mic input gain spans +6 to +80dB (even if the original preamps being replicated didn't), and line inputs span ±10dB. Phantom power, polarity inversion and a high-pass filter are enabled by three more buttons at the bottom of the panel section.


The next part of the front panel is concerned with clocking. A button cycles through the available internal clock rates (from 44.1 to 192kHz), while another selects internal or external word-clocks, or the digital input as the clock reference. A button at the top of the section activates the 'session saver' function — essentially an automatic gain control which prevents digital clipping of the output of the device, regardless of compressor or EQ settings.
The central portion of the unit is dominated by a large, two-line, backlit LCD window and six associated rotary encoders, each with a ring of LEDs to give an idea of the current settings. The first encoder determines the amount of second-order distortion introduced to provide a controllable degree of 'warmth' (as explained in the other box elsewhere in this article). The next five controls handle the compressor parameters: Threshold, Ratio, Attack, Release and Gain makeup. The numeric values of each of these six parameters are presented clearly above each encoder knob. The top line of the display shows the name of the preamp replication, the preamp gain, the preset program name and number, and the compressor replication.
The preamp and compressor replications are selected by first pressing the associated button at each end of the window to indicate which element to change. The data-encoder wheel in the bottom right-hand corner of the unit is then rotated to scroll through the available options. Pressing the data encoder enters the selection, and there is a brief mute while the new convolution data is loaded and the input circuitry is reconfigured.
A second vertical bar-graph meter to the right of the LCD shows the amount of gain reduction, along with two further buttons to activate the stereo link function with a second unit, and to switch the compressor into circuit. The gain-reduction meter is a rather odd because of its unusual scaling — more than half the display spans 3dB, and a quarter covers just the first dB. Although extremely precise, the result is a strange visual illusion where the meter appears to lag behind the audio peaks.
The next element of the front panel concerns the simple three-band equaliser. There are six rotary encoders, again with LED rings, arranged in pairs for each band. The high shelf at the top features a frequency control spanning 200Hz to 20kHz with ±18dB of boost or cut range. The mid-range section covers 100Hz to 10kHz with the same gain range, while the low-frequency shelf ranges between 10Hz and 1kHz. The mid-range section can also be switched to a high-Q setting for more surgical duties, and the entire EQ section is switched into circuit using an illuminated button. Other buttons allow the EQ to operate before the compressor if required, or for it to act in the compressor side-chain (with a Listen facility to aid in tuning). If accurate EQ values are required, another button calls the current parameter values to the LCD window.
The last control section on the right-hand side provides all the housekeeping facilities. Three buttons at the top provide a global Bypass mode, with Compare and Revert facilities so that you can try out different parameter settings in a non-destructive way. The lower part of the panel carries the preset Save and Recall buttons, and a preset-naming facility. There are also Clear and Setup buttons to configure the unit, and the Data knob already mentioned, with its over-press function to act as the Enter button.
I found the operation of the unit very intuitive with clear and informative metering. The LCD display also provides all the critical information in a very understandable way.

The Liquid Channel

The Liquid Channel is essentially a channel strip in a 2U rackmounting box that precisely replicates (rather than models) a wide range of classic mic preamps and compressors, in combination with a new Focusrite digital EQ and some top-grade digital converters thrown in for good measure. It uses digital convolution with some very sophisticated analogue techniques (see the box below) and is the product of almost three years of joint R&D effort between Sintefex a company known for its experience in convolutional processing, of course and Focusrite, who bring their knowledge of class-leading mic preamp technology to the party.

The Liquid Channel features stunning chrome rack ears and a distinctive new fascia style which will be continued on future Liquid series products (several are apparently planned). This is a single-channel processor equipped with analogue mic and line input connections (but no DI input), plus an AES-EBU digital input, and both analogue and digital outputs. It is also equipped with word-clock in and out, and a USB port for both remote control and data transfers to and from a Mac or PC. A pair of phono connectors is also provided to couple two units together for stereo working.

The signal path comprises a mic preamp the most sophisticated Focusrite has ever built followed by an A-D stage. The subsequent digital processing provides a convolutional preamp and compressor, plus a newly designed digital EQ stage. The processing order of the compressor and EQ can be reversed, or the equaliser can be allocated to the side-chain of the compressor.

The rapid advances in DSP technology are illustrated by the fact that the first Liquid Channel prototypes produced two years ago employed four SHARC DSP chips with a maximum audio sample rate of 96kHz. The production unit uses a single, high-powered SHARC chip for all its processing, and supports audio sample rates up to 192kHz!

With its digital I/O facilities, the Liquid Channel can be used entirely in the digital domain but not only for the replications of analogue compressors. Another converter enables the digital input to be routed through the analogue preamp as a line-level signal, to benefit from a chosen preamp's character, if required.

By the time the product is in production, it will contain the convolutional data for 40 different mic preamps and 40 compressors, and even when fully loaded, the user will be able to change the library of preamps and compressors using the USB download facility to obtain new data from the Focusrite web site. As mentioned in last month's News item, Focusrite are being coy about exactly which vintage models will be available in replicated form, but it's not hard to draw up a shortlist of models both discontinued and current, esoteric and familar that could fill the wishlists of most engineers and producers. Names like the Neve 1073, Pultec MBI, API 3124 and Focusrite's own ISA110, plus compressors such as the Urei 1176 black face, Teletronix LA2A, Fairchild 660, and Amek 9098 spring to mind well, to my mind, anyway!

The unit also provides 99 user preset memories, which can also be stored externally via a USB transfer to a computer. These enable every parameter including mic gain to be stored or recalled in an instant. The unit can also be operated remotely via the USB interface but there is, surprisingly, no MIDI facility at all.

Despite my short time with the Liquid Channel prototype (and despite not being in ideal conditions for a listening test), I was able to compare the Liquid Channel running its Focusrite ISA110 replication with a real ISA110 sitting next to it. The preamp replication seemed remarkably accurate; I was unable to tell them apart.

The Liquid Channel promises to be a producer's dream, providing accurate renditions of a wide range of hard-to-find or unaffordable preamps and compressors, in an easy-to-use format and with repeatable settings. Assuming the production units live up to the promise of the model I played with, I can see the Liquid Channel appearing in racks all over the world in double-quick time. Watch this space!

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,009
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,009
It's time to crawl under the desk and take cover.


Yorik
Stone In A Pond


"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 362
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally posted by StoneinaPond:
It's time to crawl under the desk and take cover.
From a previous post:

>>>>
A compressor is even more of a challenge to analyse, because of the dynamic nature of the device its performance changes intentionally with both input signal level and the signal envelope. So, in addition to taking impulse responses for every possible control parameter setting, each one has to be repeated for a wide range of input levels, and the dynamic response has to be analysed too.

However, provided this is all done with sufficient precision, when the new input signal is convolved with the impulse response of the required audio process, the resulting output will provide a perfect replica of the required sound, just as if the input signal had been processed through the original device.
>>>>

"Perfect replica!"

Not so - this is contestable because it isn't possible to develop a convolution of the actual signal you happen to be using each time you use it :-) All that can be made is a rough approximation using a sample set of stimuli. An accurately built conventional model of the process would be a more accurate representation of the devices true characteristics.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
There is another reason why I think boxes like the Liquid Channel will take off.

The people that buy the most music, are content with MP3 recordings. Most people do not have high end stereo's and don't care if someone uses a SM58 or Neumann U87 mic. As long as the music is good. It's only people like us who truly appreciate crystal clean vocals, drums, and high end reverbs. Too bad it's true. Of course there are some out there who like high quality recordings as well, but they are in the minority.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:
The people that buy the most music, are content with MP3 recordings. Most people do not have high end stereo's and don't care if someone uses a SM58 or Neumann U87 mic. As long as the music is good. It's only people like us who truly appreciate crystal clean vocals, drums, and high end reverbs. Too bad it's true.
Actually it's really not true, and I'm getting sick of hearing people say this. You don't need a high end stereo to appreciate something that was recorded well. A great recording on MP3 is still going to sound much better than a shitty recording on MP3. And being "clean" is not the only hallmark of a great recording, in fact it sometimes isn't a hallmark at all. The fact is that you often need high end gear to capture the true depth and impact of an instrument, and that definitely WILL have an effect on how the listener perceives the song, even if they end up listening to it on an MP3 or a crappy boom box or AM radio.

And of COURSE the listener doesn't care whether a U87 was used in the recording, that's OUR job. It doesn't make it any less important to the listener's actual experience of the end result.

Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 362
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:
The people that buy the most music, are content with MP3 recordings. Most people do not have high end stereo's and don't care if someone uses a SM58 or Neumann U87 mic. As long as the music is good. It's only people like us who truly appreciate crystal clean vocals, drums, and high end reverbs. Too bad it's true.
Actually it's really not true, and I'm getting sick of hearing people say this. You don't need a high end stereo to appreciate something that was recorded well. A great recording on MP3 is still going to sound much better than a shitty recording on MP3. And being "clean" is not the only hallmark of a great recording, in fact it sometimes isn't a hallmark at all. The fact is that you often need high end gear to capture the true depth and impact of an instrument, and that definitely WILL have an effect on how the listener perceives the song, even if they end up listening to it on an MP3 or a crappy boom box or AM radio.

And of COURSE the listener doesn't care whether a U87 was used in the recording, that's OUR job. It doesn't make it any less important to the listener's actual experience of the end result.
Totally agree :-) In this world of descending values, it's a good thing to remind ourselves why we care so much about the tools we use. And we should resist being lulled into thinking that they don't matter - however much certain factions of the music industry would like us to believe it.

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
I completely agree with that, Paul. I have the cool gear that I own because I wanted it really badly; not because I make so much money from it, but because it sounds so good. I would never trade it for a Pro Tools rig because in three years, the PT rig will be junk while I'll still love using the Neves and the C-12.

But to stay working and current in this business, I have to use Pro Tools. Many times that means mixing in the box, too. I just can't spend all my time thinking about how crappy it is. I need to see the glass as half full. I take what I have, do the best I can with it and look toward the future.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:


The people that buy the most music, are content with MP3 recordings. :
That doesn't mean that we, audio-engineers, should be thought. Because otherwise we should just start recording directly into MP3 format.


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
I agree with you guys 100% on having good gear, and of course not recording on MP3. It just seems that the average 13-26 year old (who buy most of the Cd's) don't care if your using a U87 or SM 58. A copy mic pre or the real thing. As long as it sounds good. I don't agree with this thinking at all, but many I talk to in that age bracket think otherwise.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,433
I don't tend to take direction from 13 year olds that much.


IMDB Credit list
President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,277
A
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
A
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,277
Great post, Lee.

I wanted to say something similar, but you found the perfect words.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul Frindle:
In this world of descending values, it's a good thing to remind ourselves why we care so much about the tools we use. And we should resist being lulled into thinking that they don't matter - however much certain factions of the music industry would like us to believe it.
Yeah, not to mention certain factions of engineers and artists in their basements who would like to believe their stuff is "world class." Keep lowering the standard for what "world class audio" is, and it WILL be. That would be sad.

I say this as someone who these days mostly records in my basement with cheap gear. I enjoy it and think I've made some good records that way, which couldn't have been made at all otherwise. So one could say I have a vested interest in saying it's "as good as the real thing" - but having worked with the real thing, honesty compels me to report that it ain't.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
I think we got off the topic a bit. But the whole issue on this modeling is allowing us to get a good sounds (though maybe not as good as the real hardware unit) but good enough that people will buy it which will hurt the company's that make the great gear. Even George's eq is a plug in for Pro Tools. Heck with the music industry slump, I would opt for his plug ins, unless money was rolling in all the time, and was not an issue.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:
I agree with you guys 100% on having good gear, and of course not recording on MP3. It just seems that the average 13-26 year old (who buy most of the Cd's) don't care if your using a U87 or SM 58. A copy mic pre or the real thing. As long as it sounds good.
You're still missing the point. Of COURSE they don't care. They wouldn't even know what those things were in all likelihood. That doesn't mean they couldn't tell the difference if you played them a song recorded with great gear vs. the same song with crap gear. Most of them don't get the opportunity to choose, because WE choose for them.

You say that plugins and emulation are "close enough for people to buy" but sales figures would indicate otherwise. People are not buying music as much as they used to. This can only mean that what they're hearing isn't compelling enough for them to buy, and the quality of the recording certainly has a bearing on how compelling it is to the listener. Sure there are "low fi" recordings of great songs or bands that are successful, but I've also seen great performances ruined by terrible audio.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
"People are not buying music as much as they used to. This can only mean that what they're hearing isn't compelling enough for them to buy, and the quality of the recording certainly has a bearing on how compelling it is to the listener"

I think this is true because the record company's are not paying attention to the baby boomers who did spend tons of money 20 years ago on music. They don't care what we want to hear. There is so much great music being recorded that is not being played on the radio. If it is not being played, you don't know about it unless you search and try to find it yourself. I believe if you like Lynard Skinner from the 1970's that their last 4 Cd's, (at least one)that they have come out with you would like and buy. But again, when Lynard have a new CD, no one plays it.
Same thing when Hootie and the Blow fish, Allman Brothers, BB King, Robert Cray or Peter Frampton. If you liked Frampton Comes Alive, you would also love his Live in Detroit. But the radio stations will not play any of these artist from the 70's and 80's that have new music. Did you even hear the George Harrison CD when it came out on the radio? I never did in NY. The Classic Rock stations will play the classic songs from the rock bands, but not the new stuff for the most part. These damm record companies just want to play new bands. With the exception of Aero Smith and some others. Personally I am burned out on the same 10 Led Zep songs that are played on the radio non stop.
Didn't the Bangels come out with a new CD as well. I saw them in the studio on Behind the Music on VH1 working on it.

I'm telling you, the music industry is blowing off the Baby Boomers. They don't want to play new music of old bands. \:o

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
It would be wrong to think that just because DAWs are inferior to the best of the analog world, that music can't be expressed there. All these little stomp boxes, as they have been called, have parameters that can be adjusted to taste, sometimes with pleasing results. That is what we do.

Steve

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Sure Steve, all these things do have their usefulness and you certainly could like what they do and make good music with them - but like George and Paul have said several times now, they still don't sound like what they claim to sound like, and for anyone to say they do is just wrong.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 15,398
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:

I think this is true because the record company's are not paying attention to the baby boomers who did spend tons of money 20 years ago on music. They don't care what we want to hear.
Boy ain't that the truth. Hell, boomers are still spending tons of money on music TODAY. People are paying $1500 for Simon and Garfunkel tickets, and the clueless labels and radio stations aren't marketing any new stuff to them. They're still clinging to the notion that only teenagers will buy records. Well sure, if you only promote records that only teenagers want to hear!

Quote:
There is so much great music being recorded that is not being played on the radio. If it is not being played, you don't know about it unless you search and try to find it yourself.
Yep. That's why so many people now would rather get their music off the Internet.

Quote:

I'm telling you, the music industry is blowing off the Baby Boomers. They don't want to play new music of old bands. \:o
Or even new music that has some of the hallmarks of old bands. There are tons of new acts out there playing stuff that boomers would love, but have never heard of.

That isn't really what I meant by people not feeling compelled to buy music, but it's certainly one more factor in the decline of the industry.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
It's the economy stupid. Well at least in part.
There are good points being made: Record Cos who don't take risks; not enough well-recorded material, and on and on. But I have to agree with System 8, the record company who finally taps that Baby Boomer market will rake in the dough.

Also, thanks for the Focusright propaganda, it helps explain a lot, and some of the claims may be true. 44 DSP chips is a lot to handle, got to hand it to the Sinetefex folks for that little trick alone.

Shootout anyone? With some scientific measurements. A well-designed and independent "shootout" will tell if the stuff "replicates" the real deal.

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally posted by Lee Flier:
Sure Steve, all these things do have their usefulness and you certainly could like what they do and make good music with them - but like George and Paul have said several times now, they still don't sound like what they claim to sound like, and for anyone to say they do is just wrong.
I think we're in agreement, Lee. MicMod certainly won't change a 57 into a U47. No question about it. But you just might get a very cool, wild effect out of Pitch Blender. There's always a chance that monkeys will type Shakespere, given enough time.

As far as IP rights go, I have always wondered why Neuman and the others legitimize Antares claims by letting them use their mic model numbers on the list inside the software. That seems like a crime to me. And why do Fender and Vox and Marshall let Amp Farm use their names? Did they get paid a license?

Steve

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 93
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 93
<
You say that plugins and emulation are "close enough for people to buy" but sales figures would indicate otherwise. People are not buying music as much as they used to. This can only mean that what they're hearing isn't compelling enough for them to buy,>>

I disagree partly. People not buying has nothing to do with what gear was used, or whether the project had $100 expendable to them, or $100 000; THE bottom line is ... is the song great? Is the music great? If yes, then it will be bought. The average public (which happen to be the masses that purchase the music we try to sell/labels try to sell)never walked into a store to buy a record because the mix was phenomenal. A great piece of song/music will more than likely sell, even if the production and the mix were no up to par; but if the production and the mix were great and the song 'sucked' then generally speaking, the record won't move off the shelf. We are talking about the 'masses'.


~AJAY
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
Yeah, song, performance, and then sound.

But can we get back on topic:

Computer Modeling of Analogue Devices.

Does anyone have anything to say about Sinefex?

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Dude, why are you asking us? You are so obviously anxious to have this unit of your dreams - what's stopping you from buying the Sintefex? You could do us all a favor, and check it out. Then you could tell us how great it is.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5